Tesla, TSLA & the Investment World: the Perpetual Investors' Roundtable

[Featsbeyond50]

That's ridiculous! You people need to elect a new utilities commission that will actually work for the people! Someone is making too much money! It wouldn't surprise me if the problems can be traced back to Enron and like companies and the lobbying that was done, etc.

People are just beginning to see that they can charge just about whatever they want. Everyone should be voting (voting out) with this in mind because this is not just San Diego, it will soon be everywhere.

 

[Max Plaid]

FYI ETrade (Morgan Stanley) says consensus is $1.83...

View attachment 829736

$3, who would estimate $3 other than a complete idiot, ah, yes, I think I know who - throw in a high number to bring up the consensus and try to manufacture a "miss", which is surprising as he's always going on about Tesla is busted and has the lowest PT of anyone

These averages should be calculated with the outliers excluded, would be far more meaningful

 

[M|S|M MYP]

The AP Interview: GM's Barra talks electric vehicles, future

General Motors CEO Mary Barra outlined an ambitious plan for her company to sell more electric vehicles in the U.S. than Tesla by the middle of this decade.

apnews.com

TL: DR

You led Mary...You led

 

[M|S|M MYP]

$3, who would estimate $3 other than a complete idiot, ah, yes, I think I know who - throw in a high number to bring up the consensus and try to manufacture a "miss", which is surprising as he's always going on about Tesla is busted and has the lowest PT of anyone

These averages should be calculated with the outliers excluded, would be far more meaningful

Probably someone who's first name begins with a G and ends with an N...Last name begins with a J and ends with an N.

 

[ammulder]

Cybertruck is mostly a pickup truck but it meets the criteria of many customers buying SUVs and minivans so it’s really going after the whole light truck segment.

I'm not sure that's really true. We need a 6-seater, and not one that has a child rubbing elbows with the driver. Lots of families around here get large SUVs (like, Suburbans) to haul family and friends and sports equipment and whatnot. I am not really expecting them to switch to the Cybertruck. I'm not sure it's THAT important in principle to have the cargo and passengers in a single space as opposed to storing the luggage and gear in the bed, but for some reason I haven't gotten the impression that the people with these large SUVs would go for that. And the 3-row models with capacity for 7 or 8 people aren't going to be replaced either.

I would expect there to be more people who might get a crossover or small SUV to consider a cybertruck -- some fraction who don't actually consider the smaller size of a crossover relative to a pickup to be an advantage -- but I'm not actually sure whether say a RAV4 or CR-V counts as a "light truck".

 

[UncaNed]

FSD Beta v10.13 Release Notes
- Improved decision making for unprotected left turns using better
estimation of ego's interaction with other objects through the
maneuver.
- Improved stopping pose while yielding for crossing objects at
"Chuck Cook style" unprotected left turns by utilizing the median
safety regions.
- Made speed profile more comfortable when creeping for visibility,
to allow for smoother stops when protecting for potentially
occluded objects.
- Enabled creeping for visibility at any intersection where objects
might cross ego's path, regardless of presence of traffic controls.
- Improved lane position error bv 5% and lane recall bv 12% with a [cut]
- Improved lane position error of crossing and merging lanes by
22% by adding long-range skip connections and a more powerful
trunk to the network architecture.
- Improved pedestrian and bicyclist velocity error by 17%, especially
when ego is making a turn, by improving the onboard trajectory
estimation used as input to the neural network.
- Improved animal detection recall by 34% and decreased false
positives by 8% by doubling the size of the auto-labeled training
set.
- Improved detection recall of far away crossing vehicles by 4% by
tuning the loss function used during training and improving label
quality.
- Improved the "is parked" attribute for vehicles by 5% by adding
20% more examples to the training set.
- Upgraded the occupancy network to detect dynamic objects and
improved performance by adding a video module, tuning the loss
function, and adding 37k new clips to the training set.
- Reduced false slowdowns around crosswalks by better
classification of pedestrians and bicyclists as not intending to
interact with ego.
- Reduced false lane changes for cones or blockages by preferring
gentle offsetting in-lane where appropriate.
- Improved in-lane positioning on wide residential roads.
- Improved object future path prediction in scenarios with high yaw
rate.
- Improved speed limit sign accuracy on digital speed limits by 29%,
on signs with difficult relevance by 23%, on 3-digit speeds by 39%,
and on speed limit end signs by 62%. Neural network was trained
with 84% more examples in the training set and with architectural
changes [cut]

What Safety score % are they requiring of testers now? And what the heck do they mean by "Aggressive Turning"??

 

[UnknownSoldier]

Is this going to be the usual pump and dump on earnings? The setup looks the same - rising in anticipation, then selling the news on earnings FUD attacks, then after a couple days it's back pushing even higher (especially with volume ramps underway).

What's different this time? Does anyone think it's back to 699 this week briefly?

The MM's will definitely want it to be near Max Payne by Friday to kill all options players regardless of direction played. So we'll see. I'm guessing flat by EoW.

 

[2daMoon]

We will agree to disagree then. Work patterns here in the USA are very "pulsatile". Peak demand for transport in the morning and afternoon for people commuting to work. I just don't ever see the fleet getting that large, and for that reason there will be things like "demand charges (a la Uber)" which will either upset people, or result in insufficient supply.

Additionally, you are never going to get people with 100+ mile per day commutes (tradesmen, etc.) to pack up their tools and hop in a robotaxi. This part is a byproduct of a larger country, and I expect this would be far less than smaller countries with shorter commutes.

Finally, you have people like me and my family that just have to leave on the drop of a hat (my wife runs a mobile business with same day appointments). We use Uber services when vacationing if possible, but for primary usage it's a no-go from the start.

This is all true, and honestly, from my perspective I'm right there with you about never wanting to be without my own vehicle. But, I'm rural, and most of the population is urban. Most of those people in the urban areas are not within the classes of tool-bearing tradesmen as you have described. (and yes, some are, and they will want their own vehicle)

However, the greatest demographic for Robotaxi are those people who don't need their own vehicle, don't want to drive, and who are among the unskilled, unsafe, and distracted-behind-the-wheel groups as well. These are very likely the largest sector of potential customers, particularly if you add in those already using mass transit and Uber for their primary means of mobility. They are probably the leading cause of collisions and injuries as well as being a significant part of the population in general.

It is easy to see things from a perspective of my own use scenario and discount how anyone else might feel otherwise, much less, that it could be MOST other people would. In this case the actual number of people who would use Robotaxi instead of owning a car could easily be significantly greater that many might think.

Add to this how some Robotaxi users might own a vehicle and also use Robotaxi for many/most local travel simply because it is affordable and more convenient for a lot of run of the mill trips. Those tradesmen might leave their work vehicle at home and take a Robotaxi rather than expose the tools of their trade to unnecessary peril. Reduced wear and tear on the owned vehicle, no parking hassles and so on are other considerations.

IIRC, the numbers indicate that riding Robo may actually cost less than maintaining an owned vehicle. This translates to a longer lifespan for the owned vehicle that is kept in the garage whose frequency of use is being offset with Robo use.

And, we haven't mentioned how the owned vehicle could be making money as a Robo for some vehicle owners as part-time in a Robotaxi fleet.

These are likely not all aspects to be considered, but make a reasonable argument to discount the idea of any desire/need to own a vehicle being an impediment to Robotaxi use.

 

[Gigapress]

We will agree to disagree then. Work patterns here in the USA are very "pulsatile". Peak demand for transport in the morning and afternoon for people commuting to work. I just don't ever see the fleet getting that large, and for that reason there will be things like "demand charges (a la Uber)" which will either upset people, or result in insufficient supply.

Additionally, you are never going to get people with 100+ mile per day commutes (tradesmen, etc.) to pack up their tools and hop in a robotaxi. This part is a byproduct of a larger country, and I expect this would be far less than smaller countries with shorter commutes.

Finally, you have people like me and my family that just have to leave on the drop of a hat (my wife runs a mobile business with same day appointments). We use Uber services when vacationing if possible, but for primary usage it's a no-go from the start.

The USA is a huge country but 80% of Americans live and work in urban and suburban areas (link) and that percentage has been trending higher for a long time.

Much depends on Loop development. Each robotaxi would have like 5x more ridership capacity at rush hour if it can go unimpeded through a tunnel at maybe 75 mph average instead of 15 mph average. Loop has way higher capacity potential than people realize, especially when they get bigger vehicles and reduce headway closer to 1-2 seconds instead of 6 like they have now. 2 seconds per car is 1800 cars per hour, and if they still end up making a 16-passenger vehicle for busy routes, that would be nearly 30k passengers per hour from a single tunnel. Double that if they do 1-second headway.

When a robotaxi/Loop network operates at scale, even with variable pricing that surges at rush hour it should still be substantially cheaper and more convenient than private car transportation. People will complain about “price gouging” but probably still ride. A large portion of the American population is spending 20-40% of their income on car expenses and have really tight finances.

Tools for tradespeople don’t necessarily need to stay with the truck in many cases. Perhaps Tesla or a third party will design some kind of removable toolbox system that uses the L-tracks in the vault or maybe the tailgate ramp. Some sliding rails and a pneumatic elevator using the truck’s compressed air could probably work, and could probably be made inexpensively enough to beat the economics of owning the truck outright and having it sit useless most of the time. Order truck, load big toolbox into vault, ride to worksite, unload toolbox onto ground, work, repeat on way home.

A large robotaxi fleet should support the use case of mobile businesses and dropping everything to go to an appointment. In college I used to repair iPhones with mobile appointments like that. Car expenses with my simple little Kia that I hypermiled still ate up a substantial portion of my profit margin. I would’ve gladly ordered a cheap robotaxi and brought my equipment to the trunk if that option had been available. The wait time needs to be reasonable but that’s a function of the scale of the network. I expect this would work for most mobile businesses with same-day appointments.

 

[geometro]

I'm not sure that's really true. We need a 6-seater, and not one that has a child rubbing elbows with the driver. Lots of families around here get large SUVs (like, Suburbans) to haul family and friends and sports equipment and whatnot. I am not really expecting them to switch to the Cybertruck. I'm not sure it's THAT important in principle to have the cargo and passengers in a single space as opposed to storing the luggage and gear in the bed, but for some reason I haven't gotten the impression that the people with these large SUVs would go for that. And the 3-row models with capacity for 7 or 8 people aren't going to be replaced either.

I would expect there to be more people who might get a crossover or small SUV to consider a cybertruck -- some fraction who don't actually consider the smaller size of a crossover relative to a pickup to be an advantage -- but I'm not actually sure whether say a RAV4 or CR-V counts as a "light truck".

I would be all over a Tesla minivan with 0-60 in 3.0 seconds... plenty of room for everyone and their gear. Better than a SUV or truck, IMO.

 

[unk45]

Can someone tell me what is the challenge here? I understand charging is a challenge. Not sure how he managed the charge the last 200 miles closer to his destination climbing up the mountain.

ICE cars are not efficient and lose power at high altitudes. But the fact there are passable roads up to base camp means ICE vehicles were used to build those roads. So I don't quire understand the statement, 'only electric cars can get here'.

Here is the link to the video. I do not understand either, for sure, but I rather suspect the other vehicles were all diesel powered. The really remarkable thing is that the trip was all with Superchargers, at least as far as Lhasa. This is by any definition remarkable, I imagine we all agree about that.

 

[StealthP3D]

Can someone tell me what is the challenge here? I understand charging is a challenge. Not sure how he managed the charge the last 200 miles closer to his destination climbing up the mountain.

ICE cars are not efficient and lose power at high altitudes. But the fact there are passable roads up to base camp means ICE vehicles were used to build those roads. So I don't quire understand the statement, 'only electric cars can get here'.

The government limits tourist travel on that stretch of road to animal drawn carriages and special electric buses equipped with supplimental oxygen in the cabin, run by the government. I'm sure he needed a special permit to drive there and they would not probably not give such a permit to a gas vehicle. Many gas vehicles would not make it anyway as they are not designed to run at 17,000 feet and they would pollute terribly, making it difficult for the hikers and beasts of burden in the thin air.

At 17,000 feet the air is so thin electric cars will get their best range. I'm not familiar with the topography of that road but, chances are, you could arrive at the top with zero charge and still make it back to the nearest charger due to being able to regen on the descent.

If you are ever in such a situation, you can increase your range dramatically by spending 15 minutes and loading rocks into the car until you are at the GVWR. Take them out when the descent is mostly completed. It makes a big difference.

Spoiler: OT: Motorcycles at 14,000 feet

I've ridden gas powered motorcycles with EFI over 14,000 feet in Colorado and, in first and second gears the lack of power on an otherwise powerful motorcycle is astounding. However, at higher speeds the lack of power is largely compensated for by the lack of drag which normally makes up a huge amount of the power required. At 90-100 mph, I could not tell the difference in acceleration from sea level.

 

[MartinAustin]

Imagine in 2 years time, the first wave of mass market competitors have come and disappointed

Ummm.... that has already happened!

Mercedes EQC
Audi E-Tron SUV
Jaguar i-Pace
Chevrolet Bolt EV & Bolt EUV
BMW i3

That's the list of cars that were not overtly compliance cars. If you add Fiat 500e, Kia Soul EV, etc. there are even more.

So I invite you to imagine in 2 years time, when the second wave of mass market competitors have come and disappointed...

 

[willow_hiller]

View attachment 829789

The AP Interview: GM's Barra talks electric vehicles, future

General Motors CEO Mary Barra outlined an ambitious plan for her company to sell more electric vehicles in the U.S. than Tesla by the middle of this decade.

apnews.com

TL: DR

You led Mary...You led

View attachment 829790

This is also something I pointed out in a different thread, but for some reason AP found it necessary to inflate the cost of a Model 3 to try and make GM look better:

The mainstream vehicle is something Tesla has yet to master. The Model 3 sedan, its lowest-priced vehicle, starts at close to $60,000.

Somehow $46,990 is "close to $60,000."

 

[M|S|M MYP]

This is also something I pointed out in a different thread, but for some reason AP found it necessary to inflate the cost of a Model 3 to try and make GM look better:


Somehow $46,990 is "close to $60,000."

I think what they meant to imply was $46,990 is 'closer to $60,000 than it is to $30,000'

 

[Ogre]

Ummm.... that has already happened!

Mercedes EQC
Audi E-Tron SUV
Jaguar i-Pace
Chevrolet Bolt EV & Bolt EUV
BMW i3

That's the list of cars that were not overtly compliance cars. If you add Fiat 500e, Kia Soul EV, etc. there are even more.

So I invite you to imagine in 2 years time, when the second wave of mass market competitors have come and disappointed...

I think we're looking at the second wave of disappointing competitors right now.

• Mustang Mach E
• Ford F150 Lightning
• Hyundai EV6
• VW id.4

In 2 years we'll be right in the middle of the 3rd wave...

 

[thx1139]

View attachment 829789

The AP Interview: GM's Barra talks electric vehicles, future

General Motors CEO Mary Barra outlined an ambitious plan for her company to sell more electric vehicles in the U.S. than Tesla by the middle of this decade.

apnews.com

TL: DR

You led Mary...You led

View attachment 829790

So hysterical. By the middle means by 2025. So GM has a little less then 2.5 years to catch up.

 

[thx1139]

This is also something I pointed out in a different thread, but for some reason AP found it necessary to inflate the cost of a Model 3 to try and make GM look better:


Somehow $46,990 is "close to $60,000."

Maybe just maybe they are so used to traditional auto manufacturers advertising cars starting at a low price and then not building many without tons of options and send them to stealerships.

 

[2daMoon]

I think we're looking at the second wave of disappointing competitors right now.

• Mustang Mach E
• Ford F150 Lightning
• Hyundai EV6
• VW id.4

In 2 years we'll be right in the middle of the 3rd wave...

You really are a pessimist.

At a this rate, in 2 years couldn't we easily be in the 4th wave?

 

[ZeApelido]

https://twitter.com/x/status/1549087985626488832